Warning to Non-Citizens: Do Not Bring Your Firearms to Washington State

Member

I'm not sure if this is posted or not, but given the posting asking the question about can non-citizens purchase guns, I'm not sure if this has been made clear or not.

Non-US citizens under no circumstances can possess a firearm in Washington State without an Alien Firearms License, nor can they be issued a Washington Concealed Pistol License. AFL's have not been issued since 2006 due to a spat between the State's Department of Licensing and the FBI. Even before this spat, Oregonians and residents of other states could not get an AFL (they had to reside in Washington for two years).

There is currently a legal challenge against the AFL statute that was filed by Second Amendment Foundation.

I have very high confidence that this law will get struck down, either in district court or in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Oregon also has some provisions which are likely unconstitutional, such as a 6 month residency requirement and a declaration to ICE that you are intending to become a US citizen (which might get one deported under certain circumstances). It is likely that the AFL challenge may give us as gun owners some case law to challenge those provisions in Oregon.

Well-Known Member

By "non-citizen" do you mean non US citizen, or simply not a resident of Washington? this is a HUGE difference. Foreign nationals are subject to far stricter rules than citizens, and rightly so. Thus the provision for the resident alien permit in Washington. Didn't know about the tiff between Washington and the Feds.... and I do hope that gets trashed in court. But, as far as I understand, a US citizen from any other state can possess firearms here in Washington legally, no extra paperwork. Concealed carry is another matter, though.

Well-Known Member2016 Volunteer

Sure...I would hope every non-citizen coming to this country would have to pass a certain degree of additional scrutiny before being afforded the right to carry a firearm and own dangerous weapons. That clear enough for ya?

Member

1) Washington State stands alone as the only state which requires an Alien Firearms License. This law was passed in 1911.

2) Read the attachment below.

The Alexander Say case makes it clear that discrimination on the basis of a permanent resident's alienage versus US citizens are subject to strict scrutiny. This is even for something not presumed to be a right (Concealed Carry Deadly Weapons license in Kentucky). Federal law subjects any alien to specific laws on possession.

Washington State's law, and Hawaii's law which flat out bans non-citizens from possessing firearms, is clearly unconstitutional. Legal aliens are subject to rigorous background checks in order to even live here permanently. No one would even dare suggest that green card holders be booted for a peaceful protest and assembly on a sidewalk or park, or subject them and then only to further licensing to exercise a right. To do the same for RKBA would be hypocritical.

Member

Both laws have withstood constitutional challenges, so on what are you basing this claim?

Click to expand...

The only constitutional challenge to the Washington AFL statute was in state court using Article 1, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution by an illegal alien criminal defendant. The state court also stated that the A1S24 provisions only applied to US citizens due to the word "Citizen" being in the language. I am not aware of any federal constitutional challenge against Hawaii's law.

To my knowledge (and I've done extensive searching of this subject), there has no previous 42USC1983 challenges against Washington's AFL statute in federal court. A state court decision on federal constitutional issues is in no way binding on a federal court adjudication. The reason for the SAF/NRA lawsuit against Washington was the fact that AFL's were being issued until 2 years ago, and the permanent resident aliens didn't have their back against the wall with the FBI refusing access to DOL, and then DOL consequently refusing to issue.

Member

Non-citizens already receive Constitutional protections as soon as they set foot in America. It's a bit hypocritical seeing as how a large part of early American population were not American citizens, yet were afforded these protections.

Well-Known Member2016 Volunteer

Non-citizens already receive Constitutional protections as soon as they set foot in America. It's a bit hypocritical seeing as how a large part of early American population were not American citizens, yet were afforded these protections.

Click to expand...

Non-citizens are afforded basic civil rights. They are not afforded all rights bestowed by the bill of rights. They cannot vote for one.

Member

Non-citizens are afforded basic civil rights. They are not afforded all rights bestowed by the bill of rights. They cannot vote for one.

Click to expand...

So you're saying that the right to keep and bear arms is not a basic civil right? :huh: And I'm sorry, I can't seem to see where voting is in the Bill of Rights either, if you want to go down that path.

Well-Known Member2016 Volunteer

So you're saying that the right to keep and bear arms is not a basic civil right? :huh: And I'm sorry, I can't seem to see where voting is in the Bill of Rights either, if you want to go down that path.

Click to expand...

It is not one of the "basic" civil right extended to non-residents...just as many civil rights are not.

Member

Extra scrutiny, and background checks....understandable, but banning non-US citizens from being able to have concealed weapons is like having them drive vehicles with no seatbelts! They live in the same neighborhoods, work in the same places, pay the same tax (and additional fees to the US government), and thus subject to the same dangers that US citizens face. I am a non-US citizen, and in Oregon I have been a certified Armed Security Officer. Funny thing is I can carry a sidearm, and even use it if necessary in the course of my work, but I can't carry a concealed weapon till I get a letter from the federal government saying I have the "intent" to become a citizen. That letter cost me $235. These rules only prompt people to either be unarmed and follow the law, or arm themselves while breaking the law. Not a great place to be in. I came here legally, have been here legally, and in a few years I will be a US Citizen. I did pay the $235, because life is valuable citizen or not.

Well-Known Member2016 Volunteer

One thing I should add to my posts, I completely agree with non-citizens having to obtain additional permissions to carry firearms...but, those means need to be readily available to those that go to the trouble of obeying the law. To require the additional procedures and then deny them is wrong.

WELCOME!

Northwest Firearms provides a place for gun owners of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho a place to converse,
organize, learn, educate, trade, and most importantly, work together to preserve our Second Amendment rights.

Participation is completely free and registration takes only a few moments.

About Northwest Firearms

We believe the 2nd Amendment is best defended through grass-roots organization, education, and advocacy centered around individual gun owners. It is our mission to encourage, organize, and support these efforts throughout Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.